3 ms·
I upvoted your comments because even though I don't agree with everything you're saying, I think the discussion is valuable, especially the comparison of the mu
by apatters 7y ago
I upvoted your comments because even though I don't agree with everything you're saying, I think the discussion is valuable, especially the comparison of the music and movie industries.
You noted that music artists have a tough time making money in the modern, digital model. I would point out that this was true with the old model as well. Most artists I know who have experienced both models will say that they both suck because exposure is controlled by large distributors who are able to control where the lion's share of the money goes, but at least in the modern model they can connect with their fans directly over the Internet and there are some opportunities in that.
To compare this to the movie industry. Because music files are smaller and bandwidth used to be more limited, Hollywood watched music go digital first, it watched the old music business models and companies implode, and it took notes. Hollywood was consequently able to do a much better job of preserving their business model through DRM and legal action. Now we have $300M Avengers movies marketed worldwide.
I liked Avengers. It was not bad. It also wasn't some amazing pinnacle of human creativity that needs to be preserved. I don't see anything about this model that is inevitable, best, or essential to keep around. In fact most people will agree that Hollywood movies, designed around the "Four Quadrants" audience theory, are rather bland and mindless, because the goal of the studios is to go as huge as possible and get as many people in the theater as possible.
I can _absolutely_ imagine other models, quite possibly yielding better entertainment, smaller productions that are more tailored to specific audiences, and are more enjoyable than the typical Hollywood blockbuster, and I would have zero issues with watching Hollywood implode in the process, just like the old music industry did.
tl;dr Hollywood only survived because they had the benefit of hindsight, their product isn't that special and just like Thanos they're not as inevitable as they want you to believe.
- sonnyblarney 7y agoGood points - but Hollywood did not survive because of 'hindsight'. They are dysfunctional, and their playbook was simply 'DRM everything' and 'cross their fingers'. They really didn't do anything fundamental. They just pushed hard on the value chain for DRM. They are not sophisticated or coordinated to do anything really. They survived because the game is simply different - how and when we consume content. The investment scale etc.. It doesn't matter that 'the Avengers' isn't exactly historical, people want it, and stuff like that - and of course, there are great films made at that scale. If you can _absolutely_ better models, then you should share. Remind yourself that industries and consumer behaviours are hard to break, and that if people can 'easily' view 'free stuff' they will even if it's copyrighted. Ultimately, someone has to pay, or there have to be ads. There are just only so many ways you can configure that equation. Be it Hollywood, Netflix, Network TV, Public Broadcasting - most of the models are tried. Making even a $20M investment in a film is very risk - even with DRM and copyright - most films fail. It's a treacherous business. I personally do not think anything will change: video will be DRM'd, big pirates will be aggressively pursued, small time stuff will be fairly common, but most people will end up paying for video one way or another. Music is going to be very cheap from here on in.